The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

1. On November 12, 2014, the Defendant filed a false complaint with the public service center of the Seoul Central District Public Prosecutor’s Office for the purpose of having D receive criminal punishment.

The purport of the complaint is that “A” column of the last part of the contract in the course of preparing a contract for joint production of music records and for profit distribution with Defendant D, Inc. on August 6, 2012, stated “B” column of “B” as “(state G building) in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Yeongdeungpo-gu, 9 floor, 940, representative director A,” and stated “B” on the name of the complainant, and forged two copies of the contract under the name of the representative director A, a private document on rights and duties, which is a private document on rights and duties, for the purpose of taking a stolen and sealing the corporate seal impression possessed by the complainant A, and issued the forged contract to H, the representative director of E, who is aware of such forgery on the same day, as if it were a document duly formed.”

However, in the course of operating D and F Co., Ltd. as their respective representatives, the Defendant agreed that D will take charge of attracting investment in order to raise funds of the said company, and delegated D with the authority to conclude a contract for attracting investment, and the representative director entrusted D with the corporate seal impression of the said company under the name of the Defendant, so D did not commit theft of corporate seal imprint and seal D, and D had already known that it entered into the said contract with E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”) on behalf of the said company, and thus, D had already been aware of the fact that it used the said contract with E on behalf of the said company. Thus, D did not use the said contract by forging it.

Nevertheless, the defendant submitted a false complaint as above, and around January 29, 2015, around 09:42, the Seoul Military Court investigation and the economic team office made a supplementary statement to the above purport, and rejected D.

2. According to the statements made by the judgment D in this Court, the defendant is the defendant.